Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Russophob


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

La Russophob

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB Alex Bakharev 12:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. KNewman 12:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia includes many blogs (it is a Category). How it has been decided that one blog is notable enough and another is not? Please explain. This blog claims to be "the most trafficked, content-rich English-language Russia politics blog in the world". If this is true, this blog is notable, is not it? May be this is not true, and some research on the subject is needed. So, then let us do such research and discuss the matter. I guess Alex may have the following point: "Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents will also be either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted." But I just created this stub yesterday, and can not modify anything right now because it was marked for deletion. If you give me a chance, I could try to develop the page and see if it is notable. I do not think it is right policy to delete stubs created a few hours ago, just because the author could not complete the editing. I think that such fast reaction by several editors is actually a proof that this site is notable. I do agree that the content of this blog may be controversial. And I do not support or share Russophobia, so whatever you decide is fine. Biophys 16:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not at all: you can still modify it even though it is marked for deletion! If you think you can make a case, please do so. But I should say that "the most trafficked, content-rich English-language Russia politics blog in the world" means nothing, because the statement is from the blog itself. To mean something it would have to be given by some independent publication. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Replay. Thank you for explanation. I will post some findings and questions in the talk page of Russophob. Biophys 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that Biophys is the article's author. --Dhartung | Talk 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Unverifiable, unencyclopedic and non-notable. Vlad fedorov 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It has been decided that one blog is more notable than other; we use the guideline WP:WEB to determine which blogs pass our notability standards. It may be true that blog X is "the most Y blog in the world", but it may not be verifiable using independent, reliable sources, which is our gold standard. As it is, there are five days to find those sources and confirm the notability of the page. Stubs are permissible in Wikipedia, but non-notable content is not, whether it is a stub or a full article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. plain nonnotable. `'mikka 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it is just giving more publicity to him. (Yes, "Kimberly Zigfeld" is a dude). Jallor 23:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, how do you know it's a dude? bogdan 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete and salt the earth. Non-notable and an obvious hate site encouraging russophobia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  12:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. No problem. If everyone but me suggests to delete, let's delete in a few days. Not a big deal. I am sure this blog will meet WP:WEB in the future. It is only nine months old.Biophys 15:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. If/when this blog grows and meets the WP:WEB criteria, the article can be re-created.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I don't support Russophobia either, but Biophys' argumentation here is convincing. Wlasow 10:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is not Russophobia but Notability. Wikipedia is setup so that it is not a web guide only a very few websites notable not on internet but in the real life are to be included per WP:WEB. Not a single Russian blog or forum is included yet, and not a single one IMHO met the notability criterion (maybe with the exception of the Russian segment of LiveJounarnal/SUP). La Russophobe is just yet another unnotable blog with a catchy name. Alex Bakharev 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No one except the blog itself claims that it is the most visited and popular.Vlad fedorov 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is actually a good point. We have articles about Canadian blogosphere and Pakistani Blogosphere but nothing about Russian or European Blogospheres. So maybe we should? But that would be a different article. Biophys 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) See for example: Russia: 'Phallic' Case Threatens Internet Freedom and U.S. Media Watchdog Criticizes Russia. Seems to satisfy WP as a notable subject; may be not a notable blog. Biophys 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not russian blog since it's situated on Blogspot.com which is Google affiliate and is on English language. This blog is not searched by Russian blog search engines - like blogs.yandex.ru and is not rated by any russian blogs search engine. Calling its Russian is very naive and arbitrary itself.Vlad fedorov 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * delete, non-notable. --Irpen 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.